reviewing critical practice: an analysis of gramophone…researchonline.rcm.ac.uk/28/1/ms14...
TRANSCRIPT
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 2
Reviewing critical practice: An analysis of Gramophone’s reviews of Beethoven’s
piano sonatas, 1923-2010
Abstract
The study offers an overview of a large sample of music performance criticism in the British
classical music market through the analysis of reviews of Beethoven’s piano sonata recordings
(n=845) published in the magazine Gramophone between 1923 and 2010. Reviews were
collected from the Gramophone archive, and descriptive and inferential statistics were used to
explore the reviews’ metadata: issue, text length, repertoire, release status, pianists reviewed and
critics. There were a large number of recordings (n=641) and pianists (n=216) considered
during this period, with reviews provided by 52 critics. However, reviews were concentrated
around only a small number of authors and performers. The most frequently published critics
had long careers and a high level of familiarity with the repertoire and its interpretations.
Comparisons between performances were found to be a characterizing trait of critical practice,
and the most often reviewed pianists corresponded to those most frequently used for
comparisons. Besides new recordings, there were many reviews of re-issues (n=2045), although
this pattern decreased in later decades. The findings emphasize the importance of the
comparative element for the evaluation of performances and the necessity to account for the
peculiar nature of recorded versus live performance to understand the processes behind critical
practice. Furthermore, taken together the results suggest that critics may have an important role
as filters of choice in the musical market.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 3
In the Western classical tradition, music criticism is a well-established practice with
origins in the late seventeenth century (Cowart, 1981). Much more recent, however, is
the emergence of music performance criticism – that is, criticism of live or recorded
performances in which the main object is the realization of the work being performed,
not the work itself.
This form of criticism developed during the course of the twentieth century,
influenced by developments in recording technology, the decrease of in performances of
new compositions and the establishment of a canon of classical music repertoire, and
the consequent elevation of the performer from the status of executor to that of
interpreter. Critics had suddenly a new challenge with which to cope: reviewing and
comparing different interpretations of the same piece by different performers (Monelle,
2002). Performance criticism spread and entered newspapers as well as specialist
magazines such as The Gramophone (now Gramophone), which was founded in 1923
and rose ising rapidly to become one of the most authoritative voices for criticism of
classical music performance in theduring the last century.
Studies on criticism
Performance criticism is a phenomenon of the twentieth and twentieth-first centuries,
and still an unexplored one. In fact, despite that criticism has been largely dealt with in
musicology, these studies focused mainly on criticism from its origins to its flourish in
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 4
the nineteenth century. Inquiries may tend to focus on a specific geographical area
(McColl, 1996), repertoire (Cowart, 1981; Morrow, 1997; Wallace, 1986), institution
(Ellis, 1995; Flynn, 1997; Morgan, 2010) or author (Reid, 1984). They discuss the
institution of music criticism in its cultural and historical context, addressing a wide
palette of themes emerging from critics’ writings, like changes in musical taste and in
the role of critics, the relationship between music, music criticism and society, and
changes in the ways of listening to music listening habits (Morgan, 2010). But the form
of criticism taken by all these studies is almost purely criticism of musical compositions
(or compositional genres, styles, tendencies) and meta-criticism.
A part-exception to this is Morgan’s (2010) investigation of texts published in the
Gramophone between 1923 and 1931, and written by critics and readers who were
members of Britain’s National Gramophonic Society. Through the analysis of these
texts Morgan discusses how patterns of listening and thinking about music changed in
response to the advent of recording technology and what function the first Gramophone
critics held in this process. Morgan’s study offers a first case ofis the first investigation
of reviews of recorded performances reviews, even though these were just a minority of
the texts analysed. However, recording technology was in its infancy during the period
analysed and the change in focus from criticism of the work to the that of the
performance in criticism had yet to occur. As Morgan states, critiques of performances
in the 1920s showed a lack of specifity and detail, thus appearing to today’s reader as
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 5
vague and unprecise. According to Morgan this may reflect partly the non-musical
background of the founders and first critics of the magazine; on the other hand, this is
also due to the still marginal concern for performative issues by in listeners, who were
primarily inclined to discuss the work performed and the quality of the recording.
Besides musicology, philosophy of art has long been concerned with criticism and
related topics. In recent decades analytic philosophers have offered important
contributions to the critical discourse by through extensively discussingextensive
discussion of issues like such as the nature and localization of the value of works of art
(Beardsley, 1965; Budd, 1995; Dickie, 2000; Levinson, 2004, 2009), the process of
criticism and the importance of reasons for value judgements (Beardsley, 1982; Carroll,
2009; Hopkins, 2006), the existence and nature of principles of aesthetic value
(Beardsley, 1962; 1968; Dickie, 1987; Levinson, 2002), the intersubjective validity of
aesthetic value judgement (Budd, 2007), the nature of aesthetic concepts
(Aschenbrenner, 1981; Sibley, 1959), as well as specific issues related to the use of
language by critics like the distinction between thin and thick concepts (the former
being purely evaluative, the latter being descriptive concepts with an evaluative
component, see Bonzon, 2009; Elstein & Hurka, 2009) and the use of metaphors (Grant,
2010). These papers discuss topics relevant to art criticism in general, and thus can be
applied to inform any investigation of this practice. However, as it is appropriate to their
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 6
philosophical nature, they do not offer nor look (systematically) into real world
examples of criticism.
Recently, sociology and cultural studies have also turned to the critical practice
with increasing interest, in particular recognizing criticism the role of as a gatekeeper of
taste (Schmutz, Van Venrooij, Janssen, & Verboord, 2010, p. 501), offering
legitimation legitimacy to a cultural institution, thereby giving it the status of Art.
Baumann (2001) argued that American critics offered a legitimating ideology for
Hollywood movies to be acknowledged as an art form, and in music the same is claimed
to have happened with jazz (Lopes, 2002, cited in Schmutz, Van Vernooij, Janssen, &
Verboord, 2010) and rock (Regev, 1994).
The rising interest in criticism from sociology and cultural studies brought some
of the first large scale systematic explorations of large sets of critical writings. In one
such study, Schmutz et al. (2010) investigated changes in newspapers’ coverage of
popular music by observing the style and genre of repertoire reviewed, and as well as
the type and length of critical writings published in newspapers in Germany, France,
United States and the Netherlands between 1955 and 2005. Their findings showed a
rising prominence of popular music across the decades in all four countries,
accompanied by a shift toward an evaluative and properly critical approach to the
emerging art form, that which all pointed to an the increasing legitimacy of popular
music (p. 505).
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 7
Schmutz et al. (2010) offersed an example of the insights that may be gained
through the observation of criticism metadata. The focus on popular music in thise
study however, makes the distinction between criticism and performance criticism
irrelevant, since populairrelevant. The popular music repertoire reflects a model of
musical performance in which the notion of work and that of performance are not as
separate as they are in classical music, and where the construct of interpretation
therefore plays therefore a different and arguably marginal role.
Aims of the present study
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, we can now look back at almost one
hundred years of performance criticism of recorded performance (Elste, 1989). This
material offers fertile and still largely unexplored terrain of enquiry, in which decades of
history ofhistorical interpretation are witnessed through the eyes and ears of seasoned
listeners. A better understanding of the phenomena underpinning the appreciation and
evaluation of performances can be gained by By looking at what critics wrote, what
features of the performance features they considered worthy of critical attention, and
how they described and reacted to different personalities and interpretive styles., a better
understanding can be gained of the phenomena underpinning the appreciation and
evaluation of performances. A systematic examination of music performance criticism,
however, offers information relevant to musical practice even without discussing
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 8
critics’ claims and arguments. Through an overview of a large sample of published
performance criticism available today, the present study offers a first attempt at a
systematic, explorative analysis of metadata of performance criticism and discusses the
relevance of this heritage of material’s heritage for understanding the processes behind
experts’ evaluations and their implications for the musical practice.
Method
The present sample of criticisms chosen for this examination encompasses all reviews
of commercial recordings of L. v. Beethoven’s 32 piano sonatas published in the British
monthly magazine Gramophone between April 1923 and September 2010. While
circumscribing the study to the British music market, the choice of the Gramophone as
the source for material allows us to analyse a vast review corpus of a specific repertoire
over 87 years, published in a leading magazine for reviews of classical music
recordings. Every page of the recently opened online magazine issues archive from this
period was read in order to extract the reviews (1050 issues: www.gramophone.net1).
The Rreviews’ texts were collected in Microsoft Word documents, and a
database was compiled with the following information: issue (date, page); sonata(s)
1 Opened in 2009 but no longer available publicly. Access to the digital collection of Gramophone
reviews, including all texts used in this study, can now be purchased as application for iPad, desktop or
tablet.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 9
reviewed; pianist(s) reviewed; label; critic; release status (i.e. new release, re-issue, first
release of an old recording2 with old understood as >15 years); repertoire reviewed (i.e.
only one or more Beethoven’s sonatas or one or more of Beethoven’s sonatas plus other
works); presence of comparison(s) with different pianist(s); and length of the review (in
words). Descriptive and exploratory data analyses were carried out on the whole dataset.
FollowingIn the present article, the analyses results are grouped into four sections that
focused on the structure and length of the text, the repertoire reviewed, and the pianists
and the critics involved, respectively. These results are then discussed in the final part of
the article.
Results
In total, 845 reviews of recordings of Beethoven’s piano sonatas were found in the
Gramophone. For six of them3, the text in the online Gramophone archive was
2 These are cases of recordings produced several decades (between ca. 20 and 70 years) prior to their
public release. Differently from other recordings – usually released a few months after their production –
these recordings did not seem to be meant (or chosen) to be released publicly in the first instance (e.g.
radio broadcasts, live concerts). The peculiarity of these recordings is underlined by critics, who
emphasise in the reviews’ titles – and sometimes again in the body of the reviews – the time and context
of production (not mentioned for other recordings).
3 April 1959, p. 38; July 1969, p. 77; September 1978, p. 155; November 1992, p. 215; August 2000, p.
79; June 2003, p. unknown.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 10
damaged, hence for these reviews information regarding text length and, partlyin some
cases, the name of the critic, release status and pianists reviewed could not be integrated
into the analyses.
The distribution of reviews by decade is shown in Figure 1. In the first three
decades (up to 1950), the publication rate was 2.659 reviews per year, with a trough in
1941-1950 (16 reviews) due to the severe conditions during World War II that affected
both the magazine (for instance, by paper rationing) and the record industry production
(Pollard, 1998). Subsequently (1950 – 2010), reviews were distributed relatively evenly,
with an average rate of 12.94 reviews per year and a peak in 1961-1970 (150 reviews).
[INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE]
Structure and length
Soon after the launch of the magazine (by the early 1930s), reviews developed a clear
two-part structure: titles containing information regarding the object being reviewed
[piece(s); player(s); label; format, when appropriate original recording and price] and
critical text. At the end of the text the review can be signed with either the name or
initials of the author. Starting in 2000, reviews also present begin with a one sentence
title-like statement at the beginning of the text.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 11
Critical text parts of the reviews (henceforth, simply reviews) are on average 411.74
words long (SD=278.81); their length oscillates between 10 and 2446 words. The 10-
word review concerns Op. 13, “Pathétique” first movement performed by Frederic
Lamond. It appeared in a miscellaneous section on September 1943 with the text “An
impressive performance of one of Beethoven's masterpieces; brilliantly played”
(unsigned). The 2446-words text is a review by Richard Osborne published on January
1992 concerning the EMI’s re-issue of 5 discs of of Arrau’s recordings of Beethoven’s
five concertos, Variations on an original theme in C minor, and piano sonatas Opp.
27/2, 31/3, 53, 54, 57, 81a, 101, 110, 111 (5 discs).
Using a Kruskal-Wallis test, Rreview length was found to be associated with
different factors such as decade (Kruskal-Wallis test: H8=60.5326, p<0.001), and
review’s author (H10=41.361, p<0.001, computed for the 10 most prolific critics, see
Table 3 below).
[INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE]
Also repertoire and pianist reviewed were found to be correlated with reviews’
length. Reviews of recordings entailing mixed repertoire (Beethoven’s sonatas plus
something else) were longer (the difference was significant according to Mann-Whitney
test:, U=98,981.50, p<0.01) and more varied in length than recordings of only
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 12
Beethoven’s sonatas (Table 1), a fact that could be brought back ascribed to the higher
heterogeneity of quantity and nature of the repertoire discussed in those reviews. A
moderate positive correlation was found between review length and pianist reviewed,
with more often reviewed pianists (see Table 2 below) receiving on average longer
reviews (mean=452.93 words) than compared to less often reviewed ones
(mean=369.78 words); U=73,017.50, p<0.001.
[INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]
Repertoire
Recordings reviewed may entail a single sonata, groups of sonatas or the whole cycle of
32 pieces. Out of the 845 collected reviews, 322 concern recordings that include one or
more of Beethoven’s sonatas alongside some another composition. These works might
be Beethoven’s Bagatelle or piano Concerti or works by other composers, and the
section of review concerning these other works can ranged from a few words to a more
than 90% of the whole text.
Throughout the whole corpus of reviews, the four most often reviewed sonatas
are (ranked digressivelyin descending order): Op. 27/2 Moonlight, Op. 57
Appassionata, Op. 13 Pathétique and Op. 111. With the exception of a small group of
sonatas (Op. 31/2 Tempest, Op. 53 Waldstein, Op. 81a Les Adieux, Op. 106, Op. 109
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 13
and Op. 110) all other sonatas are homogeneously spread around 75 instances each
(Figure 3). Among the least reviewed sonatas we find the so-called ‘easy sonatas’ (Opp.
14, 49 and 79), together with Opp. 7, 22, 54 and 31/1.
Beethoven’s 32 piano sonatas represent, together with the Well-tempered
Clavier of Bach, a singularrare cases within classical music: along over time, they have
developed a strong identity as a group, or cycle, almost as if they were one entity. Using
Joachim Kaiser’s words: “this intimate and adventurous path from c to c – Op. 2 No. 1
begins with the note c and the C minor sonata Op. 111 closes with c – these 32 works,
performed always again and again, build a cosmos that is multitudinously rich, and yet
as totality completely coherent” (Kaiser, 1975, p. 24, translation by the author).
The metaphor of the path and the strong feeling of completeness and variety
linked to this cycle is justified by the fact that these 32 sonatas seem to reflect different
periods in Beethoven’s professional and personal life: from the early Vienna period at
the end of the eighteenth century through the heroic style period to the last years, signed
by the highest technical and musical maturity but also by the tragedy of Beethoven’s
deafness and increasing isolation. The connection between the 32 sonatas and the
composer’s life is very strong, and it is not unusual to hear, for instance, that a young
pianist can or should not perform Op. 111, no matter how musically gifted s/he is, since
to perform this sonata properly (or even fairly) a certain maturity and experience with
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 14
life, not just with music, is needed (see for instance Fischer, 1956, p. 14) 4. With this
background in mind, the distribution of sonatas was explored for the three periods of L.
v. Beethoven’s activity was explored separately (Opp. 2 to 28 first period; Opp. 31 to 78
second; Opp. 90 to 111 third).
[INSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE]
For each review three variables were computed that indicate – for each of the
three Beethoven’s periods – the total amount of sonatas present in the reviewed
recording. Given the different quantity of sonatas that occur in each period (15 for the
first, 11 for the second, and 6 for the third), the resulting values were standardized to
allow for comparison between the three groups of sonatas. Mean standardized quantity
of sonatas in each decade for each of the three periods is shown in Figure Error!
Reference source not found.4, the first three decades are merged together due to the
low number of reviews in those years.
4 See also Gramophone review, March 1988, p. 50. Here this view also seems implied in Stephen
Plaistow comments on Taub’s recording of Op.111. After praising the “young American pianist” for his
“authentic Beethovenian energy, …fuelled by the mind rather than the fingers alone” he continues: “Who
said that pianists have to be old and grey before we can expect them to have insights into Beethoven's last
sonatas?”
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 15
A strong increase is observed over the course of the century in the mean number
of sonatas entailed within one review (adding all sonatas together, Kruskal-Wallis test:
was significant, H8=118.70697, p<0.001) as . This could be interpreted as consequence
of the technological developments that allowed much longer recording time at lower
production costs.
[INSERT FIGURE 4 ABOUT HERE]
It was also observed that the The three groups of sonatas do not develop equally
across decades. Late sonatas were the least common at the beginning of the 20th
century,
slowly increased their presence along the years and reached the other groups of sonatas
in the 1970s and 1980s. In the last two decades these late sonatasy then became the
most prevalent group, high above the first and second period sonatas. First period
sonatas were the most common in 1923-1950, but the least often reviewed at the end of
the century (this despite the presence of the Moonlight sonata – which belongs to the
first period and is the most often reviewed sonata overall – in the first period).
Friedman’s test showed a significant difference in the distribution of the three groups of
sonatas, χ(2)=73.6768, p<0.001. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni
correction applied revealed significant differences between sonatas of the first and third
period (Z=7.444, SE=0.0549, p<0.001) and of the second and third period (Z=5.145,
SE=0.0549, p<0.001).
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 16
Re-issues
Out of the 845 reviews collected from the Gramophone 2045 (24.285%) were reviews
of re-issued recordings. The term re-issue may relate to different kinds of products.
Here re-issue is used to indicate any commercial release of a recording other than its
first release. According to this definition re-issues may be releases of a recording in a
new format (e.g. 78rpm released as LP and then as Compact Disc), as well as recordings
released in the same format more times by the same or by different label(s) (for
instance, once as single disc and once as box set). In these terms re-issues may or may
not include different degrees of engineering work.
Distribution of re-issues was strongly associated with the decade (Pearson’s
χ2(16, N=844)=256.921, p<0.001, Phi=0.552, p<0.001, in the analysis re-issued and
partly re-issued recordings (see distinction below) were merged in one category). Re-
issues first appeared in 1951 (February, p. 24), with Alec Robertson reviewing a Decca
LP re-issuing Backhaus’s recording of Op. 109, in E major, and Chopin’s “Funeral
March” sonata. Their presence of re-issues increased toward the 1980s, when the ratio
between new recordings and re-issues being reviewed was almost 1:1. After 1990 this
tendency receded but was partly compensated for by a new phenomenon: old,
unpublished recordings that were suddenly made commercially available. That is the
case, for instance, for For example, broadcast recordings which that were never
commercially released or old recordings which were not selected for a published release
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 17
in the first instance. The first example of this kind is Josef Lhévinne’s Op. 27/2,
“Moonlight Sonata”, originally recorded on piano rolls together with several other
pieces on a Norman Evans Estonia-Ampico piano at the beginning of the century and
released in September 1985 by L’Oiseau-Lyre. The interest toward old recordings
seems to havehas increased since then, so that in the 2000s almost one third (26.83%) of
reviews concerned this kind of product. Within this picture, starting in the 1960s, a
small number of reviews concerns partly re-issued recordings. That happens when there
is a release of a group of sonatas, some of which are newly recorded while some others
are taken from previously published material, for instance, in order to complete a cycle
(Figure 5).
[INSERT FIGURE 5 ABOUT HERE]
Pianists
Pianists reviewed in the collected Gramophone reviews number 216, but merely 17 of
them cover 51.950% of all reviews. So, while Arrau was reviewed 53 times and Brendel
52 times, there are 117 pianists who are reviewed just once throughout the century.
Out of the 216 pianists, 81 were used by the reviewers for comparisons. Of the
16 performers most often used for comparison, 14 correspond with those included
among the 17 most reviewed pianists (Table 2).
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 18
[INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE]
It was reported that 2045 of the 845 collected reviews are were reviews of re-
issued recordings. Of these, 1523 (74.5163%) are about these 17 most often reviewed
performers, so that the ratio between new recordings and re-issues for those pianists is
1.546:1 while for the residual 199 performers it rises to 6.44:1. This difference in
proportion is significant according to Pearson’s Chi-Square, χ2(1, N=775)=67.304,
p<0.001, Phi=-0.30295, p<0.001 (Figure 6).
[INSERT FIGURE 6 ABOUT HERE]
Comparisons between pianists by reviewers, used to explain, justify or clarify a
critical statement, were common, found in 41.28% of all reviews and 543.102% of the
reviews of recordings entailing only Beethoven sonatas. Beginning in October 1953,
comparisons were also stated officially in the titles of the reviews (Table 3).
[INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE]
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 19
Critics
Among the 845 collected reviews, seven reviews (0.83%) were damaged so that it was
not possible to read the name of the critic at the end of the text, and 73 reviews were
unsigned (8.64%). Among initials, pseudonyms and names reported under the residual
765 reviews, it was possible to identify 52 different critics. And among them, just 10
critics wrote 530 reviews – that is, 62.72% of the whole corpus (Table 4).
[INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE]
Most of these reviewers’ activity is spread along across several decades, with an
average of 21.32 years between the first and the last published reviews; the highest peak
reached bywas Stephen Plaistow at ’s 41 years and 3 months. Two exceptions are
Andrew Porter, who, for what concernings Beethoven’s piano sonatas, was only active
in the 1950s and Jed Distler, the most recent of those critics, who started reviewing
Beethoven’s sonatas in 2005. Seen chronologically, some of these reviewers
significantly shaped the Gramophone critical output, contributing substantially to the
overall set of reviews of for a given period. For instance, Andrew Porter wrote 34.75%
of the reviews of Beethoven’s piano sonatas reviews published in the 1950s, while
Bryce Morrison and Jed Distler together produced the 58.56% of the reviews that
appeared in the 2000s.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 20
Discussion
These results raise several issues regarding the practice of criticism of recorded
performance criticism and its relationship with the music recording market and music
performance studies.
Agony of choice
There is a noticeable change in the repertoire reviewed over the last century. The
distribution of sonatas seems to resemble the a “path to maturity” from early sonatas to
Op.111. The increasing number of reviews of late sonatas in the later decades of the
century should be taken cautiously, but still it is intriguing. If this change cannot be
explained away as a random phenomenon, various questions arise. Is this tendency
really reflected in the development of effective record production? If so, is it just a
coincidence or does it mirror an effective shift in listeners’, performers’ and/or labels’
preferences, taste and expectations? What role did criticism play in this shift? Does it
make sense to claim that, as the performer needs to mature before approaching
Beethoven’s late sonatas, so does the listener? These and similar questions could be
addressed from an historical and cultural perspective as well as from a psychological
one, for example following Eliashberg and Shugan’s (1997) dichotomy and
investigating critics’ role as influencers and predictors of listeners’ preferences.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 21
Such a study should thencould move beyond issues of repertoire preference and
examine preferences for particular interpretations. As this the present investigation
suggests, there must be aare a large number of commercially available recordings from
which listeners can choose. Alone, the Gramophone reviews cover 845 recordings,
including 204 re-issues, produced by 216 different pianists. Since reviews published in
this magazine presumably represent only a small selection of the recordings available on
the market (consider, for example, the 23 pianists mentioned in the last section of the
article who completed the recording of the Beethoven cycle and are not mentioned at all
in the magazine), the amount of material seems impressively large. Already in 1951
Alec Robertson, reviewing Arrau’s recording of the Moonlight sonata, complained that
“we hardly needed another recording [of this piece]” (Gramophone, February 1951, p.
24). Since then the same sonata has been reviewed 176 times in the same magazine.
And the Gramophone reviewer of 50 years Lionel Salter claims that this abundance of
recordings puts an “intolerable strain” on the reviewer, when it comes to find
“something fresh to say” about the nth
performance of the same piece (Pollard, 1998, p.
201).
It is thenGiven this abundance of recorded material, it is legitimate to ask to
what extent critics (and more so consumers) are actually able or have the necessary
time, energy, and financial resources to distinguish between the many different
interpretations and to appreciate their differences when there are hundreds of recordings
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 22
at their disposal.. Findings in decision-making research suggest that an increase in
options (quantity of different versions of an item from which to choose) may
paradoxically lead to paralysis of choice and dissatisfaction, even in the arts (Schwartz,
2008). In this scenario the critic’s guidance – working as filter of choice – seems to
becomes particularly significant. This is much more so since many critics tend to have
long-lasting careers, writing for the magazine for several years or even decades. And in
the second half of the 20th century, they also became increasingly specialized in a
specific repertoire and some of them have come to be acknowledged worldwide as
authorities in their field (Pollard, 1998, p. 200).
On the other hand, this high level of familiarity with the repertoire and its
diverse interpretations may influence critics’ attitudes and preferences towards certain
performances in ways different from lesser degrees of familiarity, likely to be found
among the general public (Levinson, 1987, 2002, 2010). This in turn could suggests that
what may be considered a good performance by a critic listener – a good value-for-
money recording – may not be considered thus by a listener critic who has a different
level of musical expertise and listening history. Despite a conspicuous corpus of
research addressing the influence of musical expertise on reliability and consistency of
performance assessments (for a recent overview see Kinney, 2009), no study so far to
date has investigated differences in the preference for one or the other interpretation
between listeners with different levels of expertise (an exception being a preliminary
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 23
study carried out by the authors, see Alessandri, Eiholzer & Williamon, in press); and
no study has taken into account the level and kind of expertise typically exhibited by
music critics.
Comparative listening
A further observation that can be drawn from the findings is the weight that thegiven to
the comparative element is given in the reviewing practice. Comparisons between
different interpretations/recordings emerged as a constitutive trait of Gramophone
reviews, and Editor Jolly supports this observation claiming that the comparative
element is the “characteristic that has set Gramophone’s reviews aside from its rivals”
(Pollard, 1998, p. 202).
The importance given to comparative judgements in reviews is consistent with the large
number of recordings of the same repertoire and the fact that reviewers tend to work
over many years, searching for better understanding of how various interpretations
differ from each other. However, comparisons in the present study tended to focus on
only a small number of pianists. This, as Schick (1996) suggests, could be explained by
the sheer number of recordings available, which forces critics to “compare a new release
only with their past favourites, which makes the task more practical but eternally rejects
a slighted disk.” (Schick, 1996, p. 157). In any case these results raise questions on
regarding the role of comparative judgement in music appreciation. In music research as
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 24
well as in the academic context, with few exceptions, performance evaluation is
explored through a criterion based assessment procedure – in which a performance is
judged in isolation, set against a set of commonly agreed criteria – rather than through
norm referenced assessment – in which a performance is assessed through comparison,
as being better or worse thanof another performance (McPherson & Schubert, 2004).
The importance that criticism seems to attribute to the comparative element however
suggests that it could be useful to reconsider the extent to which listening to various
interpretations is actually done, or can be done, in a criterion based way.
Re-issues
Finally, some reflection is needed on the presence of awe consider the substantial
number presence of re-issues among the recordings reviewed. Almost one quarter of all
the reviews found in the Gramophone are reviews ofconcern re-issued recordings. That
fact raises questions regarding the criteria behind the process of selection as to what to
review, as well as the nature of a re-issue itself and the objective behind the published
review.
In the second half of the century, the growing recording market imposed the need for
more stringent selection of the material to be reviewed. The choice of so many re-issues
over new recordings could then be striking at first: why should the Gramophone invest
space in discussing performances already described and evaluated in previous years thus
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 25
ignoring new, possibly great recordings? What is the purpose of re-reviewing one and
the same performance? An answer to this question is inevitably multifaceted. Editor
Jolly, describing how the process of selection of recordings changed overtime, claims;
Today [1998] with some 400 discs arriving each month […] decisions as to what to select for
review are taken with the knowledge that every so often something superb is going to slip through
the net. (James Jolly in Pollard, 1998, p. 203).
That suggests that quality (or assumed quality) is a criterion behind the review
selection of what to review. The choice of re-issues could then be seen as a way to
reaffirm the value of an old recording over a new one (and of the magazine’s decision to
review it in the first place). But that alone cannot be a sufficient reason. Reviews of re-
issues were evenly spread among long-lasting critics and other reviewers, suggesting
that their presence is not due to seasoned critics’ biases in terms of awareness and
appreciation of older pianists. The quick growth in number of reviewed re-issues found
between 1950s and 1970s can be brought backascribed firstly to the availability of new
technologies, that which explained the production of re-issues in the first place.
However, the ground gaining movement of historical performance interpreters in those
years might have also influenced this tendency, provoking critics to investigate the
value of the new performance practice in relation to that of their mainstream
counterparts.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 26
The strong presence of re-issues suggests also that different issues of one and the
same recording are considered to be two distinct sound objects. This could be
understood in two ways. As said, the growth of re-issues reviews starting in 1951 may
be explained by the technological innovations of subsequent decades: the introduction
of the LP record by Decca in 1950, the following stereo recording in 1958 and later on,
in 1983, the Philips/Sony digital recording and the CD (Dates relate to the UK market.
See Pollard, 1998). It is a truism to claim that the 78rpm version and the LP or CD
version of Schnabel’s recordings of Beethoven’s sonatas are not – aurally – the same
object. Even within the same format, different re-mastering processes by different
engineers create a significantly different end product. This apparently obvious claim
however poses a question regarding the scope of music recording reviews. Should
reviewers comment on issues of recording quality?
Despite that the very acousmatic nature of the listening experience recordings
offer let us approach this sound object as a kind of portable version of a concert The
average listener views music recordings as portable concerts (Alessandri, 2011) without
necessarily being aware of recording issues. If in a concert review we expect critics to
discuss the work and its performance, in a recording review reviewers need to take into
account a third aspect, namely, the recording as a recording. Critics are aware of the
complex nature of sound recording and of the different contributions offered by
performers, producers, engineers and technical resources, putting them in a unique
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 27
position to review the recording as a whole. Of course it remains to be seen the extent to
which this component enters the overall value judgement of the recording itself.
A second way in which a re-issue can be seen as a product other than its original
release is what seems to be suggested by Gramophone editor Jolly when discussing the
nature and purpose of a music review:
T. S. Eliot argued that every time a new poem is written the entire canon of poetry is changed
irreversibly and, similarly, every time a work is reinterpreted the entire history of that work is
subtly altered. When Claudio Abbado records a new Bruckner Ninth, his version has to take its
place not just alongside all the other versions with the Vienna Philharmonic, or all the versions
that have been recorded by Deutsche Grammophon, but alongside every version that has ever
found its way on to disc (James Jolly in Pollard, 1998, p. 202).
New interpretations can shed light on the nature of older interpretations, and a
critic’s perspective and appreciation of a given performance can change overtime
through exposition to different performances of the same or of other pieces. So for
instance, Edward Greenfield reviewing Wilhelm Kempff’s 80th birthday edition of
Beethoven’s sonatas and concertos claims:
Of these sets the earliest is of the Beethoven piano concertos, first issued in 1962. The fantasy, the
sense of joy bringing a smile to the lips, is what above all strikes me afresh on hearing these
performances again. That is so even in No. 3, which I remember disappointed me slightly when I
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 28
first reviewed it for these pages, slower and a little more staid than Kempff's earlier mono version
(DG DGM18130, 12/55—now deleted). But in context with the others, the slower tempo for the
first movement now seems no less convincing, the magic of Kempff wonderfully persuasive in the
transition to the second subject for example (November 1975, p. 151).
In this perspective, reviewing a re-issued recording becomes an occasion to
approach an old recording anew and re-evaluate it in the light of other recordings
produced so far; when appropriate, to re-affirm its value as interpretation and maybe
also its increased value in terms of recording quality, and finally, to make the readership
aware of its availability in a new, improved, format. In the light of these reflections, re-
issued recordings seem to be objects different from their first releases, standing on their
own and with their own right to be reviewed and. Ttheir substantial presence in the
Gramophone material collected seems therefore to be justified.
Re-issues were also associated with the distribution of reviews among pianists.
Amongst the 17 most often reviewed pianists are those who are usually acknowledged
as great Beethoven interpreters, like Schnabel, Kempff and Brendel. With the exception
of Richter, all pianists encompassed in this list are ones who completed the recording of
all 32 sonatas. Within them are encompassed six of those eight performers who are the
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 29
only pianists to have recorded the whole of Beethoven’s cycle more than once in the
course of their lives.5
The fact of having recorded more sonatas, even all sonatas more than once, could
explain the high number of reviews those pianists received. However, along the century
many other pianists accomplished the task of recording all 32 sonatas: according to a
previous study (Alessandri, 2011) by 2009 at least 64 pianists had completed or were in
the process of completing the cycle (Alessandri, 2011). Here we have just a selection of
16 of them. Other performers who completed the cycle are mentioned in the
Gramophone, even if only a part (often a small one) of their cycle is reviewed, and 23
of those 64 performers6 do not appear in the Gramophone pages at all. Hence the fact of
5 i.e. Arrau, Backhaus, Brendel, Barenboim, Gulda, Kempff, in addition: Paul Badura-Skoda and Bernard
Roberts. Information is taken from a previous discographical project on Beethoven’s piano sonatas. See
(Alessandri, 2011).
6 Robert Benz, Muriel Chemin, Dino Ciani, Sequeira Costa, El Bacha Abdel Rahman, Maria Grinberg,
Gotthard Kladetzky, Paul Komen, Michael Korstick, Christian Leotta, Michaël Lévinas, Seymour Lipkin,
Andrea Lucchesini, Murray MacLachlan, Anne Øland, Georges Pludermacher, Akiyoshi Sako, Russel
Sherman, Robert Silverman, David Allen Wehr, Gerard Willems, Yukio Yokoyama, Dieter Zechlin. Of
course, this could at least partly be linked to the fact that Gramophone has been dealing to a largest extent
with British releases. Unfortunately, a clear distinction between records available and records chosen for
reviews is not possible due to the lack of comprehensive data on what records were issued in the UK in
each given period. As indication however, out of the 23 cycles mentioned, 15 are currently available in
Amazon.co.uk for purchase, 6 are available but only as import product, and 2 are not available.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 30
having produced a high number of recordings of Beethoven’s sonatas does not entirely
explain alone the consistent presence of these pianists in the magazine reviews.
These performers did not just record Beethoven’s sonatas: they produced
recordings that, as it seems, passed the “test of time”. Re-issues can be produced for
marketing reasons, for instance to celebrate a specific circumstance (e.g. Kempff’s 80th
birthday) or to offer certain pieces in different couplings or groupings (e.g. complete
cycle box set or, on the contrary, a choice of a few sonatas such as named or late
sonatas). The high number of reviewed re-issues could then be seen as the music
world’s attention to and celebration of famous Beethoven pianists. However, as said
during the past 90 years the main motivation behind the production of re-issues was
arguably developments in the recording technology. If this is the case, recordings
produced at the early stages of this developmental process were the ones that were
candidates for later re-issues. In this perspective recordings produced in the 1980s or
later seem to be twice disadvantaged in that the high quality level, durability and
stability of the CD as a medium might have a direct consequence for the recording
industry policy: re-issues are no longer needed. Once all great performances of the past
will have been proposed in this new format it is difficult to see why a new release would
be necessary (with the exceptions, mentioned above, of re-issues produced for
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 31
marketing reasons).7 Supporting this, looking back atEvidence for this can be seen in
Figure 5Figure 5 where we see a decrease in reviews of re-issues that within the last
decade reviews of re-issues decreased.
Regarding the pianists reviewed in this corpus of critical texts, it might then be
asked we might then consider who would now be at the top of our frequency table had
Schnabel, Arrau or Kempff lived two generations later and recorded in the CD era, and
had Ohlsson, O’Conor or Fu’Tsong recorded these pieces in the early stages of sound
recording technology. It could also be asked: who would we now celebrate as great
Beethoven interpreters?
Conclusions
This article has provided an overview of a large sample of music performance criticism
collected in the Gramophone’s archive, accompanied by reflections on the practice of
criticism itself.
The exploratory and observational nature of the study, as well as the focus on one
specific corpus of reviews, limit the generalisability of the results to the processes
underpinning music criticism as a whole. However, reflections emerging from the
7 With the exceptions, mentioned above, of re-issues produced for marketing reasons. Of course, this
claim assumes that with digital recording we have reached a kind of “final stage” of recording quality,
assumption that is – at least – highly arguable.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 32
investigation open questions that may inform musical practice and call for further
investigation. In particular, three main points bear relevance for music performance
studies: (1) the necessity to account for recording-specific features when examining the
evaluation of recorded performances; (2) the importance of the comparative element for
the evaluation of performances and, at the same time, the difficulty of comparing
interpretations when there are hundreds of them at one's disposal; and (3) the delicate
position of critics within the recording market, positioned as intermediaries between
producers and consumers, potentially able to work as guidance for listeners but also
possibly biased by their own extensive knowledge of different interpretations.
In general, the insights gained through the present study offer evidence of the
potential that music performance criticism has as a source of information and
understanding for musical practice. In a next step, the analysis of the selected sample of
reviews should move beyond the level of metadata and enter the textual domain to
examine what features of the performance, and of the recording, critics select for
discussion and how the different elements inform the experts’ evaluation of the final
product.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 33
References
Alessandri, E. (2011). Discography or What Analysts of Recordings do Before
Analyzing. In C. Emmenegger & O. Senn (Eds.), Five perspectives on "Body and
Soul" and other contributions to music performance studies (pp. 111-125). Zurich:
Chronos Verlag.
Alessandri, E., Eiholzer, H., & Williamon, A. (in press2013). Between producers and
consumers: Critics’ role in guiding listeners’ choices. In A. Williamon & W. Goebl
(Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Performance Science 2013.
Utrecht: Association Européenne des Conservatoires AEC.
Aschenbrenner, K. (1981). Music Criticism: Practice and Malpractice. In K. Price (Ed.),
On Criticizing Music. Five Philosophical Perspectives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Baumann, S. (2001). Intellectualization and Art World Development: Film in the United
States. American Sociological Review, 66, 404-426.
Beardsley, M. C. (1962). On the Generality of Critical Reason. Journal of Philosophy
59(18), 477-486.
Beardsley, M. C. (1965). Intrinsic Value. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
26(1), 1-17.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 34
Beardsley, M. C. (1982). The Relevance or Reasons in Art Criticism. In M. J. Wreen &
D. M. Callen (Eds.), The Aesthetic Point of View, Selected Essays: Cornell
University Press.
Beardsley, M. C. (1968). The Classification of Critical Reasons. Journal of Aesthetic
Education, 2(3), 55-63.
Bonzon, R. (2009). Thick Aesthetic Concepts. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism, 67(2), 191-199.
Budd, M. (1995). Values of Art: Pictures, Poetry and Music. London: Allen Lane.
Budd, M. (2007). The Intersubjective Validity of Aesthetic Judgements. British Journal
of Aesthetics, 47(4), 333-371. doi: 10.1093/aesthj/aym021
Carroll, N. (2009). On Criticism. New York: Routledge.
Cowart, G. (1981). The origins of modern musical criticism: French and Italian music,
1600-1750: UMI Research Press.
Dickie, G. (2000). Art and Value. British Journal of Aesthetics, 40(2), 228-241. doi:
10.1093/bjaesthetics/40.2.228
Dickie, G. (1987). Beardsley, Sibley and Critical Principles. The Journal of Aesthetics
and Art Criticism, 46(2), 229-237.
Eliashberg, J., & Shugan, S. M. (1997). Films Critics: Influencers or Predictors? Journal
of Marketing, 61, 68-78.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 35
Ellis, K. (1995). Music Criticism in Nineteenth-Century France: La Revue et Gazette
musicale de Paris, 1834-1880. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Elste, M. (1989) Kleines Tonträger Lexikon: von der Walze zur Compact Disc. Kassel
& Basel: Bärenreiter.
Elstein, D. Y., & Hurka, T. (2009). From Thick to Thin: Two Moral Reduction Plans.
Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 39(4), 515-536.
Fischer, E. (1956) Ludwig van Beethovens Klaviersonaten: Ein Begleiter für
Studierende und Liebhaber. Wiesbaden: Insel-Verlag.
Flynn, T. (1997). A study in music criticism and historiography: sacred music journals
in France, 1848 to 1879. Northwerstern University.
Grant, J. (2010). Metaphor and Criticism BSA Prize Essay 2010. British Journal of
Aesthetics, 51(3), 237-257.
Hopkins, R. (2006). Critical Reasoning and Critical Perception. In M. Kieran & D.
Lopes (Eds.), Knowing Art: Essays in Aesthetics and Epistemology (pp. 137-153).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Kaiser, J. (1975). Beethovens 32 Klaviersonaten und ihre Interpreten. Frankfurt: Fischer
Verlag.
Levinson, J. (1987). Evaluating Musical Performance. Journal of Aesthetic Education,
21(1), 75-88.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 36
Levinson, J. (2002). Hume's Standard of Taste. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism,
60(3), 227-238.
Levinson, J. (2004). Intrinsic Value and the Notion of a Life. The Journal of Aesthetics
and Art Criticism, 62(4), 319-329.
Levinson, J. (2009). Aesthetic Appreciation. British Journal of Aesthetics, 49(4), 415–
425. doi: 10.1093/aesthj/ayp043
Levinson, J. (2010). Artistic worth and personal taste. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism, 68(3), 225-233.
McColl, S. (1996). Music Criticism in Vienna, 1896-1897: Critically Moving Forms.
Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.
McPherson, G., & Schubert, E. (2004). Measuring performance enhancement in music.
In A. Williamon (Ed.), Musical Excellence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Monelle, R. (2002). The criticism of musical performance. In J. Rink (Ed.), Musical
Performance: A Guide to Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgan, N. (2010). "A new pleasure": listening to National Gramophonic Society
records, 1924-1931. Musicae Scientiae, 16(2), 139-164.
Morrow, M. S. (1997). German Music Criticism in the Late Eighteenth Century:
Aesthetic issues in instrumental music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pollard, A. (1998). Gramophone: The first 75 years: Gramophone Publications Limited.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 37
Regev, M. (1994). Producing Artistic Value: The Case of Rock Music. Sociological
Quarterly, 35, 85-102.
Reid, C. (1984). The Music Monster: a Biography of James William Davison, Music
Critic of The Times of London, 1846-78, with Excerpts from his Critical Writings.
London and New York: Quartet Books.
Schick, R. D. (1996). Classical Music Criticism: With a Chapter on Reviewing Ethnic
Music. New York and London: Routledge.
Schmutz, V., Van Venrooij, A., Janssen, S., & Verboord, M. (2010). Change and
Continuity in Newspaper Coverage of Popular Music since 1955: Evidence from
the United States, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Popula Music and
Society, 33(4), 501-515.
Sibley, F. (1959). Aesthetic Concepts. The Philosophical Review, 68(4), 421-450.
Wallace, R. (1986). Beethoven's Critics: Aesthetic Dilemmas and Resolutions during the
Composer's Lifetime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 38
Tables
Table 1. Length of reviews concerning only Beethoven's sonatas and of those discussing mixed repertoire.
Reviews of only Beethoven’s
sonatas
Reviews of mixed repertoire
Mean length (words) 358.71 454.76
SD 235.55 333.49
Range 10-1830 45-2446
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 39
Table 2. The 17 most often reviewed pianists. Highlighted names in grey refer to those pianists who also
belong to the 16 performers most often used for comparisons. The two pianists most often used for
comparison who do not appear in the table are Orazio Frugoni and Richard Goode.
Name Frequency Name Frequency
Arrau, Claudio 53 Barenboim, Daniel 18
Brendel, Alfred 52 Gieseking, Walter 18
Kempff, Wilhelm 49 Gulda, Friedrich 16
Backhaus, Wilhelm 38 Lill, John 16
Ashkenazy, Vladimir 27 Michelangeli, A. B. 14
Richter, Sviatoslav 26 Kovacevich, Stephen 14
Schnabel, Artur 26 Pollini, Maurizio 14
Solomon 25 Serkin, Rudolf 13
Gilels, Emil 20
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 40
Table 3. Examples of different kinds of comparisons found in Gramophone. A comparison made in the
text body (top panel, used throughout the century) and comparison stated in the titles of the review
(bottom panel, used starting in 1953).
January 1981, p.48
BEETHOVEN PIANO SONATAS, VOLUME 2 Bernard Roberts. Nimbus Direct to Disc D/C902 (four
records, nas, £19.40). Notes included.
Roberts does not have all the tonal poise or intellectual quickness of Schnabel whose set of these same
sonatas (HMV mono RLS754, three records to Roberts's four) is reviewed on page 998 of this issue. Among
more recent cycles Brendel's (Philips 6768 004, 11/78) is the more enquiring, the more intellectually various,
avoiding Roberts's tendency to slow the music unduly in moments of introspection…
June 1974, p. 74
PIANO SONATAS. Friedrich Gulda. Decca Eclipse ECS722-3 (two records, 99p each). ECS722: No. 21 in
C major, Op. 53, "Waldstein"; No. 28 in A major, Op. 101. ECS723: No. 30 in E major, Op. 109; No. 31 in A
flat major, Op. 110; No. 32 in C minor, Op. 111.
Selected bargain comparisons:
No. 21:
Brendel (6/64) (5/70) (R) TV34115DS
Nos. 28 and 32:
Rosen (5/70) 61127
Nos. 31 and 32:
Brendel (8/63) (3/70) (R) TV34113DS
Here are two further discs from Gulda's earlier cycle of Beethoven sonata recordings…
Of the two discs, though, this is of lesser interest, primarily because Gulda's account of the Waldstein Sonata,
fleeting, deft and aerial (the semi-quaver flights in the first movement at times so deft they barely sound) is no
challenge, ultimately, to the Brendel on Turnabout. Brendel plays with great economy of gesture, is as poised
and fluent as Gulda is; but with Brendel I find the music is more strikingly articulated, the virtuoso demands
more frankly met…
REVIEWING CRITICAL PRACTICE | 41
Table 4. The 10 most prolific reviewers identified in the collected corpus of reviews.
Reviewer Quantity of
reviews
written
Percentage
(all reviews)
Period of activity Percentage
(for the period
of activity)
Richard Osborne 108 12.8 Apr ’74 – Nov ‘04 27.34
Stephen Plaistow 88 10.4 Sep ’61 – Dec ‘02 16.15
Joan Olive Chissell 65 7.7 Oct ’68 – May ‘93 18.90
Bryce Morrison 60 7.1 Apr ’92 – Jul ‘10 27.91
Roger Fiske 52 6.2 Jul ’55 – Mar ‘86 11.93
Andrew Porter 41 4.9 Apr ’54 – May ‘60 49.40
David J. Fanning 33 3.9 May ’85 – Sep ‘02 17.01
Malcolm MacDonald 31 3.7 Sep ’52 – Jul ‘84 6.95
Jed Distler 28 3.3 Oct ’05 – Oct ‘09 52.83
Alec Robertson 24 2.8 Aug ’34 – Jun ‘54 31.58